The legal dispute between the daily Folha de S. Paulo and the Bocchini brothers Mário e Lino, authors of the satirical blog Falha [failure of] de S. Paulo has reached the federal appeals court, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. The case, tried in the first and second instances, is now in the hands of magistrate Marco Buzzi.

“The appeal that we filed has been transferred to the STJ, but no date has been set for judgement of the case,” explains Luís Borrelli Neto, defense attorney for the creators of the Falha, together with Leopoldo Eduardo Loureiro.

The dispute began in September 2010, on the eve of the presidential elections. Early that month, the Bocchini brothers mounted a blog called Falha [(failure)] de S. Paulo, with the domain name falhadespaulo.com.br.

The site satirized the newspaper with photographic montages and commentary, in order to suggest that the newspaper, which describes itself as impartial, is openly political and partisan, though it seeks to hide this fact from readers.

The supposed neutrality of Folha journalism is one of the pillars of marketing for the Grupo Folha, and the reaction was swift: Just 17 days after the blog was founded, the attorneys of the Frias family obtained an injunction censoring the site. …

A recent TV campaign for the FSP featured a series of readers who stress that whether or not they agree with its opinions, they continue to subscribe. Too bad this viewspaper routinely wears its heart on its sleeve, although we do subscribe on weekends.

Since September 30, 2010, when the satirical blog was taken down, Mário and Lino have been trying, through their own lawyers, to reverse the decision.

The newspaper says it simply protecting its brand name, based on the Industrial Property Law. Attorney Taís Gasparian, who submitted the 88-page complaint, says that the Folha reader might not be able to differentiate the satirial site from the official edition of the newspaper, and once connected to the Falha, might mistakenly believe the site is the official site of the Folha. It also complained of “undue use of trademark.”

The site satirized the newspaper with photographic montages and commentary, in order to show that the newspaper, which describes itself as impartial, is openly political and partisan, though it seeks to hide the fact from readers.

The supposed neutrality of Folha journalism is one of the pillars of marketing for the Grupo Folha, and the reaction was swift: Just 17 days after the blog was founded, the attorneys of the Frias family obtained an injunction censoring the site. …

Since September 30, 2010, when the satirical blog was taken down, Mário and Lino have been trying, through their own lawyers, to reverse the decision.

The newspaper says it simply protecting its brand name, based on the Industrial Property Law. Attorney Taís Gasparian, who submitted the 88-page complaint, says that the Folha reader might not be able to differentiate the satirial site from the official edition of the newspaper, and once connected to the Falha, might mistakenly believe the site is the official site of the Folha. It also complained of “undue use of trademark.”

The brothers have continued to opine on line with a site baptized Desculpe a Nossa Falha — «Pardon our mistake» — dedicated to the legal case.

The bloggers say they believe in the intelligence of the Folha reader, and that they have broken no laws. They say that the Frias family were bothered by the criticisms published by the Falha, and for this reason decided to censor it by legal means.

The authors have remained online with a site baptized Desculpe a Nossa Falha — «Pardon our mistake» — dedicated to their legal case.

From my perspective, Falha was never much more than a standard, charmingly plug-ugly Blogspot blog with a somewhat clever title and a chance of modest success.

To treat it as linchpin of an army of «dirty blogs» is to treat a straw-man as a nemesis — a nemesis that proposes to enact legislation on the hot topic of media monopolies, as it happens.

The bloggers say they believe in the intelligence of the Folha reader, and that they have broken no laws. They say that the Frias family were bothered by the criticisms published by the Falha, and for this reason decided to censor it by legal means.

Not As Insane as Advertised

An excerpt from the most recent appeal, to the federal STJ — think of the Federal Court of Appeals for the X Circuit — suggests that the Falha bloggers are doing rather well, technically speaking: most of the complaints against it were thrown out in the court of first instance.

It was for this reason that the newspaper filed the present petition: It wants to remove satirical content from the net, namely, its satirical content and use of the domain falhadesaopaulo.com.br.

It cites the Law of Industrial Property (Law No. 9.279/96).

In the view of the Appelant, however, the issue is the right to parody, as set forth in Article 47 of Law 9,610/98. Therefore the defense was found to be partially valid.

The verdict considered FOLHA’s attempt to censor the Appellant invalid; asserted that there was no risk of mistaking the Falha dominion (falhadespaulo.com.br) for the Folha domain ; and finally, the court rejected the petition for defamation.

The appeals court:

It happens that the verdict recognized that the Appelant was creating a parody and that the parody lay in the content and domain name. The decision rejected the allegation that the Folha’s trademark rights had been violated.

The appeals court, which upheld the verdict, however, based its conclusions on grounds diametrically opposed to those adduced by the trial court, declaring that the case was a matter of copyright violation and not of parody.

It is because of this incurable paradox that the Appellant filed for declaratory relief, which the court rejected …

On the central parody-copyright paradox, op. cit.

As we have pointed out, the tribunal upheld the verdict. One court cited parody and the other, violation of a trademark. …

Appellant has also applied for relief because the previous court omitted to take into account Article 47 of the Copyright Law, which upholds the right of parody.

One court cited parody and the other, violation of a trademark. …

Appellant has also applied for relief because the previous court omitted to take into account Article 47 of the Copyright Law, which upholds the right of parody.

is

Instead of Falha, is O Blogo available? Not as O Blogo dot com, hosted on GoDaddy.

The legal dispute between the daily Folha de S. Paulo and the Bocchini brothers Mário e Lino, authors of the satirical blog Falha [failure of] de S. Paulo has reached the federal appeals court, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. The case, tried in the first and second instances, is now in the hands of magistrate Marco Buzzi.

“The appeal that we filed has been transferred to the STJ, but no date has been set for judgement of the case,” explains Luís Borrelli Neto, defense attorney for the creators of the Falha, together with Leopoldo Eduardo Loureiro.

The dispute began in September 2010, on the eve of the presidential elections. Early that month, the Bocchini brothers mounted a blog called Falha [(failure)] de S. Paulo, with the domain name falhadespaulo.com.br.

The site satirized the newspaper with photographic montages and commentary, in order to suggest that the newspaper, which describes itself as impartial, is openly political and partisan, though it seeks to hide this fact from readers.

The supposed neutrality of Folha journalism is one of the pillars of marketing for the Grupo Folha, and the reaction was swift: Just 17 days after the blog was founded, the attorneys of the Frias family obtained an injunction censoring the site. …

A recent TV campaign for the FSP featured a series of readers who stress that whether or not they agree with its opinions, they continue to subscribe. Too bad this viewspaper routinely wears its heart on its sleeve, although we do subscribe on weekends.

Since September 30, 2010, when the satirical blog was taken down, Mário and Lino have been trying, through their own lawyers, to reverse the decision.

The newspaper says it simply protecting its brand name, based on the Industrial Property Law. Attorney Taís Gasparian, who submitted the 88-page complaint, says that the Folha reader might not be able to differentiate the satirial site from the official edition of the newspaper, and once connected to the Falha, might mistakenly believe the site is the official site of the Folha. It also complained of “undue use of trademark.”

The site satirized the newspaper with photographic montages and commentary, in order to show that the newspaper, which describes itself as impartial, is openly political and partisan, though it seeks to hide the fact from readers.

The supposed neutrality of Folha journalism is one of the pillars of marketing for the Grupo Folha, and the reaction was swift: Just 17 days after the blog was founded, the attorneys of the Frias family obtained an injunction censoring the site. …

Since September 30, 2010, when the satirical blog was taken down, Mário and Lino have been trying, through their own lawyers, to reverse the decision.

The newspaper says it simply protecting its brand name, based on the Industrial Property Law. Attorney Taís Gasparian, who submitted the 88-page complaint, says that the Folha reader might not be able to differentiate the satirial site from the official edition of the newspaper, and once connected to the Falha, might mistakenly believe the site is the official site of the Folha. It also complained of “undue use of trademark.”

The brothers have continued to opine on line with a site baptized Desculpe a Nossa Falha — «Pardon our mistake» — dedicated to the legal case.

The bloggers say they believe in the intelligence of the Folha reader, and that they have broken no laws. They say that the Frias family were bothered by the criticisms published by the Falha, and for this reason decided to censor it by legal means.

The authors have remained online with a site baptized Desculpe a Nossa Falha — «Pardon our mistake» — dedicated to their legal case.

From my perspective, Falha was never much more than a standard, charmingly plug-ugly Blogspot blog with a somewhat clever title and a chance of modest success.

To treat it as linchpin of an army of «dirty blogs» is to treat a straw-man as a nemesis — a nemesis that proposes to enact legislation on the hot topic of media monopolies, as it happens.

The bloggers say they believe in the intelligence of the Folha reader, and that they have broken no laws. They say that the Frias family were bothered by the criticisms published by the Falha, and for this reason decided to censor it by legal means.

Not As Insane as Advertised

An excerpt from the most recent appeal, to the federal STJ — think of the Federal Court of Appeals for the X Circuit — suggests that the Falha bloggers are doing rather well, technically speaking: most of the complaints against it were thrown out in the court of first instance.

It was for this reason that the newspaper filed the present petition: It wants to remove satirical content from the net, namely, its satirical content and use of the domain falhadesaopaulo.com.br.

It cites the Law of Industrial Property (Law No. 9.279/96).

In the view of the Appelant, however, the issue is the right to parody, as set forth in Article 47 of Law 9,610/98. Therefore the defense was found to be partially valid.

The verdict considered FOLHA’s attempt to censor the Appellant invalid; asserted that there was no risk of mistaking the Falha dominion (falhadespaulo.com.br) for the Folha domain ; and finally, the court rejected the petition for defamation.

The appeals court:

It happens that the verdict recognized that the Appelant was creating a parody and that the parody lay in the content and domain name. The decision rejected the allegation that the Folha’s trademark rights had been violated.

The appeals court, which upheld the verdict, however, based its conclusions on grounds diametrically opposed to those adduced by the trial court, declaring that the case was a matter of copyright violation and not of parody.

It is because of this incurable paradox that the Appellant filed for declaratory relief, which the court rejected …

On the central parody-copyright paradox, op. cit.

As we have pointed out, the tribunal upheld the verdict. One court cited parody and the other, violation of a trademark. …

Appellant has also applied for relief because the previous court omitted to take into account Article 47 of the Copyright Law, which upholds the right of parody.

One court cited parody and the other, violation of a trademark. …

Appellant has also applied for relief because the previous court omitted to take into account Article 47 of the Copyright Law, which upholds the right of parody.

is

O Blogo dot com dot bee-ar is also taken.

Another consideration, I should mention, was the commercial-noncommercial criterion. Hosting a link to a commercial site or service counts as commercial activity.

O Blogo dot com dot bee-ar is also taken.

Another consideration, I should mention, was the commercial-noncommercial criterion. Hosting a link to a commercial site or service counts as commercial activity.

The name servers of Globo.com continue to refer to the domain XTREMEPAGEFUCKER.com